The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[bongodriver]

What I'd like to say: I am proud of

- having done well at university

- having success x and y in my job

- being the best in this and that.

thats really just a selfish pride, but being proud of the deeds of your forebears who fought for a noble cause seems just fine to me.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

thats really just a selfish pride, but being proud of the deeds of your forebears who fought for a noble cause seems just fine to me.

strange.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

strange.

selfishness = thinking of yourself above others, akin to nacissism etc

appreciating the actions of another is not selfish.......what's so strange

Originally Posted by bongodriver

selfishness = thinking of yourself above others, akin to nacissism etc

appreciating the actions of another is not selfish.......what's so strange

we obviously have a very different notion of the word "proud" then. Otherwise I really cannot follow your logic.

Most people I talk to that claim to be proud of the deeds of others just do that: try to put themselves on a higher podest than others ("WE did this and that" saying just "YOU are not equal in this") while using the deeds of others for just that. Now how this should be something applaudable I cannot understand.

EDIT: Please take a dictionary and check the words "to appreciate" and "to be proud of". According to mine they have a completely different meaning. For me "to be proud of" is the opposite of "to be ashamed of". The first expresses a feeling of superiority, the other the opposite. This has nothing to do with "to appreciate"

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

we obviously have a very different notion of the word "proud" then. Otherwise I really cannot follow your logic.

Most people I talk to that claim to be proud of the deeds of others just do that: try to put themselves on a higher podest than others ("WE did this and that" saying just "YOU are not equal in this") while using the deeds of others for just that. Now how this should be something applaudable I cannot understand.

EDIT: Please take a dictionary and check the words "to appreciate" and "to be proud of". According to mine they have a completely different meaning. For me "to be proud of" is the opposite of "to be ashamed of". The first expresses a feeling of superiority, the other the opposite. This has nothing to do with "to appreciate"

I won't be taking your advise but thanks anyway, I know what they mean.

what is so applaudable about bragging you are the best in x/y, I would feel pretty ashamed if I claimed to be a better person than someone else, thats just like claiming to be of a master race.....

so you went to uni....big deal, I don't feel proud of the things I have achieved because they were just stuff that needed to be done, now if someone else were to feel proud of my achievements then I would just feel gratefull for the sentiment, pride can be a form of appreciation if it is projected at anothers deeds.

some people need to look outside of the dictionary and realise there is some creative licence allowed.

[fruitbat]

Concerning BoB, from the British side it was a victory because it stopped a perceived invasion, from the German side it was a draw, as the status quo remained.

It wasn't war winning, but what it did do, is go a long way to deciding where the iron curtain fell at the end of the war (which was of course completely unforeseeable at the time), simply because there was a handy jumping off point for the allies to open up a western front in '44.

As to the war, Germany lost it as soon as they stepped foot in Russia.

my 2 cents.

[robtek]

Just leave the britons their "Victory of the BoB", they've not much else to be proud of.

What one sees as a victory doesn't mean that the rest of the world is looking at it in the same way.

About being proud, one can be proud for his/her own achievements, to be proud for someones elses deeds is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes, imo.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Uhmmm is that so? Would you mind to refresh my memory and give me some examples of biased posts of mine? And I hope that with " biased" you don't mean "in disagreement with you"

Erm, Ok.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Dowding almost cost you the Battle of Britain, Harris wasted aircrews and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives with his ridiculous bombing campaign, which is regarded as a war crime

Regarded by whom, exactly?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people.

Oh, thanks very much.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Ah, another demonstration of sound historical fact.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?

Yes, and so did Admiral Raeder.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris.

See my earlier post. - No we don't; I for one wasn't even born, and Harris was acting with the authority of the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Not much cop us Brits, are we?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry but that's wrong.

Surely you mean 'debatable'?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.

Ah, those helpful mates of ours again.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

We should try and keep this conversation factual, with no national bias, but I understand it's not easy.

Absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory.

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.

Back to the evil British War criminal Harris again.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements

So do you consider yourself a serious historian? Or is your bias more nationalist than political? Or more simply, anti-british?

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

The German political leadership lost the "Campaign for England" simply because it was completely unable to set Strategic Objectives and then have the discipline/patience to see them though.

Much like the rest of the war, the little corporal interferred too much - at too many points to completely undermine anything strategic.

If Hitler had an English campaign in mind, in the months prior to the Battle of France - the BEF would never have escaped at Dunkirk. It was Hitler's own orders against the advice of his military experts that allowed the majority of the UK "cream", to escape right across the channel.

Imagine the difference in the air campaign's requirements without front line infantry and more important tactical leadership with experience?

The shifting of objectives after the Air Campaign was ongoing - without objective analysis and effective Battle Damage Assessment - is another in a blinding series of not only Strategic ineptitude, but also Operational level incompetence.

Not that any of the allies save Russia ever managed to master the Operational Level (review Bradley and Montgomery's failures during St Lo/Normandy Breakout - fairly late in the war). No nation emerged with mastery of all levels of the art of war - British, Americans, Germans and Japanese were quite good at the tactical level - while the Russians clearly mastered the Operational level with probably the best handle on the Strategic level.

Thankfully, we didn't have a ground war in Europe after WW2.

S!

Gunny

[Sternjaeger II]

Uhmmm is that so? Would you mind to refresh my memory and give me some examples of biased posts of mine? And I hope that with " biased" you don't mean "in disagreement with you"
**
Erm, Ok.

I knew you would have gone for it

living in England has taught me that Britons are probably one of the most stubborn populations on this planet.
***

yes, so what? Can't this be true? Is this society flawless or it's annoying that a foreigner points out your flaws? Let's not get all nationalist and sentimental, cos we wouldn't go far..

Dowding almost cost you the Battle of Britain, Harris wasted aircrews and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives with his ridiculous bombing campaign, which is regarded as a war crime
Regarded by whom, exactly?

the majority of historians, and a certain Winston Churchill himself..
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive"

to which Harris replied

"
I ... assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."

From Wikipedia:
"Allegations that it was a war crime
Though no one involved in the bombing of Dresden was ever charged with a war crime, there are those that hold the opinion that the bombing was a war crime.
According to Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, lawyer and president of Genocide Watch:
The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.[132]
Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime."[133] He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'pedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorization."[133]
German author Günter Grass is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.[134]
Proponents of the war crime position argue the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[135] War crime proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[136] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.
British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[137] In Fire Sites, Austrian historian Jörg Friedrich agrees the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[138]"

and this is the full page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II

..is that biased?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
it's a delusional idea man, it's propaganda for little people.

Oh, thanks very much.

Please do not take it personally, I had to make a full exam on the analysis of propaganda and it's a fact that it was probably the best invention to bend public opinion.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
declare war with what exactly? 5 Hurricanes and 10 Fairey Battles?

Ah, another demonstration of sound historical fact.

come on mate, you know what I meant, do we really have to go down the list of numbers and troops etc? You barely had enough men and aircraft to defend your mainland in 1939/1940.

Do you really think that, had they really wanted to invade Britain, the Channel or the Royal Navy would have stopped them?
Yes, and so did Admiral Raeder.

Yes, but strategically you can appreciate that a naval battle on such a narrow bit of sea would have been a carnage. The Channel would have been infested with U-Boats and the Royal Navy wouldn't have much of an easy time sinking enemy barges, especially if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority (which they didn't, but that was the idea: air superiority, air cover for flotilla, invasion).

You only have to feel ashamed for the bomber offensive perpetrated by Harris.

See my earlier post. - No we don't; I for one wasn't even born, and Harris was acting with the authority of the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

well, it's your choice not to feel ashamed, but as much as you glorify your successes you should also be objective and admit your flaws, otherwise you might be perceived as arrogant.

You had to wait for the Americans to show up in order to achieve that.

Not much cop us Brits, are we?

funny, you say you weren't there but you take it personally as if you were.
Great Britain didn't simply have the sheer number of aircraft and pilots to provide for a proper aerial superiority blanket. The Americans, with their 200+ airbases from which they operated, did. They weren't necessarily better, there simply were more of them.

I'm sorry but that's wrong.
Surely you mean 'debatable'?

debatable is just a polite word for wrong, call it whatever you want to call it.

air superiority over Great Britiain and Northern Europe was achieved only when the Americans got there.


Ah, those helpful mates of ours again.

yep, them again. You wouldn't have gone far without them, if you don't accept it you're just proving my point about blank stubborness.

We should try and keep this conversation factual, with no national bias, but I understand it's not easy.
Absolutely agree.

See? We can agree on stuff

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory.

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.
Back to the evil British War criminal Harris again.

yep, he was no better than many other incompetent generals on both sides, but his bill consisted in some unnecessary 600k civilian casualties and 55k brave RAF airmen and pilots.

Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements

So do you consider yourself a serious historian? Or is your bias more nationalist than political? Or more simply, anti-british?

If detesting the attitude "we're the good guys so we can get away with the carpet bombing of German cities and TWO atomic bombs on Japan, cos all in all it was them who got it started and they killed more anyway" makes me biased then yes, I'm a biased historian.

It's not good guys vs bad guys, the Germans had the motto "Gott ist mitt uns" on their belt buckles, not "Sieg Satan!".

It's about winners and losers, not who's good and who's bad, if you don't use this perspective you'll never give an unbiased judgement of history.